6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)

If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.

EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

bump. Looking for a response from a TD.

I'll give you a response if you give me a question.

Anyway, you can have any number of games per round and for a Large-Team Tournament 6 games per round doesn't sound like much. That said, even with 6 games per round all of the players could theoretically get a medal since you only need to play in 50% of the rounds.

Lx

According to the original post:

Night Strike wrote:4.- To be eligible for a Tournament Achievement Medal a member of the winning team must:

Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.

i.e. If a player could play in a max of 6 games per round, then they need to average at least 2 games per round over the course of the tournament.

Have participated in at least half (50%) of all rounds or phases of the tournament.

Have won 1 game in the tournament.

Note: This rule is in addition to the existing rules about Tournament Achievement Medals.

You have to play in 1/3 of the games you could play in to be eligible for a medal. With 12 players per team, the only way all players can qualify is if you all play only Quads games and every player is involved in an exact equal number of them. If you have 12 players per team, and there is one game that involves Triples, then at the very most only 11 players will be eligible for a medal. It is impossible for the 12th player to be able to meet the 1/3 minimum requirement at that point.

And the number of total games would have to be a multiple of 3 otherwise at least one player still wouldn't qualify. 100 games = 400 spots; each player has to play in 33.3 games to qualify. Since you can't play .3 of a game, you have to play 34 games to meet the minimum requirement. Players ABCD play games 1-34, Players EFGH play games 35-68, Players IJKL play games 69-100. Players IJKL only played 32 games and thus do not qualify for a team medal.

The math is the same whether it's 6 games per round or 600 games per round. And even though you only have to participate in half of the rounds, you still have to average 1/3 over the course of the tournament.

I understand the need for new requirements for Large Team tourneys but with this math it makes things tough to organize a tourney where all 12 players could all receive a medal.

Is that really what is desired? Where all 12 player Large Team tourneys are restricted to Quads only games? Perhaps there could be "medium sized" team tourneys (5-10 players) and then "large sized" team tourneys (11+ players).

And on a side note:This new rule will completely eliminate tournaments like Tupence's 2012 Olympics which I have found to be very fun and a very unique layout. You could never have Singles games in large team tournaments unless you also incorporate 1 quads game for every 2 singles games to bring up the average game count; and that would restrict the maximum amount of players to 6 per team to ensure everyone is medal eligible.

Mmmm.... I'm not a math person, maybe somebody else can jump in here as far as numbers are concerned.

I'm not sure I understand your problem. If you make sure you have enough games per round there should not be a problem with medal eligibility.... And what's the point of a Large-Team Tournament if all players cannot participate in each round?

IcePack wrote:You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

I'd really like to know what kind of tournament set-up you guys are talking about.

IcePack wrote:You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

I'd really like to know what kind of tournament set-up you guys are talking about.

Lx

I'll be happy to skype or any other msn yahoo aim type chat system when u are free.

6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)

If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.

EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

bump. Looking for a response from a TD.

I'll give you a response if you give me a question.

Anyway, you can have any number of games per round and for a Large-Team Tournament 6 games per round doesn't sound like much. That said, even with 6 games per round all of the players could theoretically get a medal since you only need to play in 50% of the rounds.

Lx

According to the original post:

Night Strike wrote:4.- To be eligible for a Tournament Achievement Medal a member of the winning team must:

Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.

i.e. If a player could play in a max of 6 games per round, then they need to average at least 2 games per round over the course of the tournament.

Have participated in at least half (50%) of all rounds or phases of the tournament.

Have won 1 game in the tournament.

Note: This rule is in addition to the existing rules about Tournament Achievement Medals.

You have to play in 1/3 of the games you could play in to be eligible for a medal. With 12 players per team, the only way all players can qualify is if you all play only Quads games and every player is involved in an exact equal number of them. If you have 12 players per team, and there is one game that involves Triples, then at the very most only 11 players will be eligible for a medal. It is impossible for the 12th player to be able to meet the 1/3 minimum requirement at that point.

And the number of total games would have to be a multiple of 3 otherwise at least one player still wouldn't qualify. 100 games = 400 spots; each player has to play in 33.3 games to qualify. Since you can't play .3 of a game, you have to play 34 games to meet the minimum requirement. Players ABCD play games 1-34, Players EFGH play games 35-68, Players IJKL play games 69-100. Players IJKL only played 32 games and thus do not qualify for a team medal.

The math is the same whether it's 6 games per round or 600 games per round. And even though you only have to participate in half of the rounds, you still have to average 1/3 over the course of the tournament.

I understand the need for new requirements for Large Team tourneys but with this math it makes things tough to organize a tourney where all 12 players could all receive a medal.

Is that really what is desired? Where all 12 player Large Team tourneys are restricted to Quads only games? Perhaps there could be "medium sized" team tourneys (5-10 players) and then "large sized" team tourneys (11+ players).

And on a side note:This new rule will completely eliminate tournaments like Tupence's 2012 Olympics which I have found to be very fun and a very unique layout. You could never have Singles games in large team tournaments unless you also incorporate 1 quads game for every 2 singles games to bring up the average game count; and that would restrict the maximum amount of players to 6 per team to ensure everyone is medal eligible.

Mmmm.... I'm not a math person, maybe somebody else can jump in here as far as numbers are concerned.

I'm not sure I understand your problem. If you make sure you have enough games per round there should not be a problem with medal eligibility.... And what's the point of a Large-Team Tournament if all players cannot participate in each round?

Lx

The number of games per round is irrelevant. It is based on percentage played. The more games you have per round, the more games it takes to earn a medal.

All players would & could participate each round. The issue is that if you have all doubles games for the large team tournament, any more than 7 players per large team and all members can not mathematically qualify for medals. If you have 12 players, you can only use quadruples to ensure medal eligibility.

What's the point of having large team tourneys if you can not utilize a large variety of settings? (i.e. Singles, dubs, trips, & quads)

IcePack wrote:You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

I'd really like to know what kind of tournament set-up you guys are talking about. I'm running a Large-Team Tournament right now where pretty much everybody is eligible for the medal and we play three 1 v 1 games, 4 doubles, 2 trips and only 1 quad game, per round, per team.

Lindax wrote:Patrick: I think I get your point. Just can't get my mind around it at the moment, it's late and I should be in bed by now.

One thing: Rest assured that it's NOT our intention to have Large-Team Tournaments only of quad games.

Lx

Understandable, I should be too. And I know you did this to avoid a lot of loose flimsy tournaments where it was way too easy to get medals but I think the numbers and minimums may need to vary based on whether it is 5 or 12 players and also the style (all trips and quads; or a variety of singles/dubs/trips/quads).

IcePack wrote:You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

I'd really like to know what kind of tournament set-up you guys are talking about. I'm running a Large-Team Tournament right now where pretty much everybody is eligible for the medal and we play three 1 v 1 games, 4 doubles, 2 trips and only 1 quad game, per round, per team.

Must have played in 6 of 18 games to qualify. All players only have 5 games. Again, this only gets worse the more rounds you progress. And 0 players would qualify for a team medal after Round 2.

i disagree. i don't question your math, just your interpretation of the rule.

Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.

it does not say they must play in a third of all games. for a tournament that requires the players to rotate it is not possible for a player to play in all of them so it is not a third of all games but a third of a lower number, determined by the format/rules of that tourney.

9 games each player must play 3 to qualify for a team medal. Only players A, B, & C would qualify for a medal based on the first round.

it is only possible for a player to play in 1 quads, 1 trips & 1 dubs - so 3 games.A, B & C are in 3 so that is 100% of what they could have played in.D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K & L are in 2 which is 66.6% of what they could have played in.

so far only A, B & C qualify for a medal but tournaments aren't decided by 1 round.

Now you must have played in 6 of the 18 games. And 0 players would qualify for a team medal after Round 2.

It only gets worse as you go through more and more rounds.

once again the max. a player could have played in is 3 games, 1 quad, trip & dubs.

A, B & C are in 2 of the 3 + 3 from round 1 makes 5 of 6 they qualify*D, E & F are in 3 of the 3 + 2 from round 1 makes 5 of 6 they qualify*G, H, I, J, K & L are in 2 of the 3 + 2 from round 1 makes 4 of 6 they qualify*

6 games per round = 6-24 spots for those games. (6 singles games to 6 quads games)

If each player has to play 2 games, that means 24 spots are required to maintain medal possibility if there are 12 players on a team, which would allow no room at all for non-quads games as they only way to maintain this is to have ALL quads games.

EDIT: Realized 12 spots per team a possibility, updated above post.

The 2 games out of 6 was ONLY an example. Players are required to play 1/3 (33%) of the games that are possible for them to play in. So someone could do a large-team tournament that consisted of 3 quads teams playing every round: meaning each player would have to average playing 1 game per round in order to meet the requirement.

IcePack wrote:Why does there need to be a limit on players? Well run tournaments, regardless of size, as long as they have appropriate sign ups and safeguards (ie reserve player policy) it should be able to be run. The line could very well be as long as they had a well designed format and allowed each players enough games etc.

The number 12 was chosen for a couple of reasons. The primary reason was that it allowed for 1 of each type of game play per round: 1 quads (4 spots), 1 triples (3), 1 doubles (2), 1 standard/terminator/assassin, and 1 1v1. That's actually 11 spots, so I just rounded it to the better number of 12. In my view, anything bigger than that starts getting into the clan war realm as probably nearly all clan wars consistent of teams of more than 12 players. And we want to be able to redraw the distinctions between tournaments and clan events.

IcePack wrote:The third - do you punish employees or using ur example, require truck drivers to had back up drivers before they've made a mistake? This is overkill. As long as the TO doesn't have a history of abandoning tournaments, why should they have to have an assistant? Den make a requimrent the sheets have to be emailed to a TD! Then u don't need an assistant and if it's abandoned they can email the sheets to the TO rescuing it.

Actually, one of the goals of having the co-organizer is as a type of mentoring program for organizers who are new to large-team tournaments (which is why they only need to have organized 1 tournament). This way the co-organizer can learn the ropes by being an assistant and then go out and post a new large-team tournament so that they can be an ever-expanding area.

IcePack wrote:I didn't like it, but it was suggested I should run some tournaments in the meantime as likely there would be a requirement for it. So even tho I only had interest in running one, I've started 3 others to show I was serious about it. It wasn't mentioned one would need to be a team tournament or I'd have started that so I would be "on the way" to started the only one I still really wanting to run.

When I told you that we would do a minimum tournament requirement, we hadn't even discussed having 1 of the tournaments be a team tournament. But after it was brought up, it only made sense to include it.

patrickaa317 wrote:You have to play in 1/3 of the games you could play in to be eligible for a medal. With 12 players per team, the only way all players can qualify is if you all play only Quads games and every player is involved in an exact equal number of them. If you have 12 players per team, and there is one game that involves Triples, then at the very most only 11 players will be eligible for a medal. It is impossible for the 12th player to be able to meet the 1/3 minimum requirement at that point.

And the number of total games would have to be a multiple of 3 otherwise at least one player still wouldn't qualify. 100 games = 400 spots; each player has to play in 33.3 games to qualify. Since you can't play .3 of a game, you have to play 34 games to meet the minimum requirement. Players ABCD play games 1-34, Players EFGH play games 35-68, Players IJKL play games 69-100. Players IJKL only played 32 games and thus do not qualify for a team medal.

The math is the same whether it's 6 games per round or 600 games per round. And even though you only have to participate in half of the rounds, you still have to average 1/3 over the course of the tournament.

I understand the need for new requirements for Large Team tourneys but with this math it makes things tough to organize a tourney where all 12 players could all receive a medal.

Is that really what is desired? Where all 12 player Large Team tourneys are restricted to Quads only games? Perhaps there could be "medium sized" team tourneys (5-10 players) and then "large sized" team tourneys (11+ players).

And on a side note:This new rule will completely eliminate tournaments like Tupence's 2012 Olympics which I have found to be very fun and a very unique layout. You could never have Singles games in large team tournaments unless you also incorporate 1 quads game for every 2 singles games to bring up the average game count; and that would restrict the maximum amount of players to 6 per team to ensure everyone is medal eligible.

The policy is worded that you have to average 33% of the possible games over the course of the tournament, which means in your hypothetical 99 game scenario, you could rotate which group of players get the 34 or 32 games each round. So in round 1, group 1 gets 34 games and group 3 gets 32 games. In round 2, group 1 gets 32 games and group 3 gets 34 games. That would rotate around to the 33%. Furthermore, the numbers were included to make sure that no player was just trying to ride the coattails of others to get a medal. I'm more than happy to tweak the exact percentages as they were developed based on intuition and not actual calculations.

IcePack wrote:You also couldn't have regular eliminations, as anyone eliminated in the large team event early rounds wouldn't have played half the rounds minimum and therefore not receive a medal for help in the early rounds. Those eliminated in 1st round would be completely impossible, which I'm fine with they wouldn't get 1 win. But the next few rounds would eliminate several players as well, and if ur limited to 5-12 those teams will dry up pretty quickly. Most of the winning team might not even get the medal...

If they are eliminated in the round, then they would have had to play in 1/3 of the possible games of the rounds they were actually eligible to play. So if every player played in 1 game per round, as long as the player played that game every round but then got eliminated in round 2 (example), they would still be eligible for the medal if their team wins.

patrickaa317 wrote:The number of games per round is irrelevant. It is based on percentage played. The more games you have per round, the more games it takes to earn a medal.

All players would & could participate each round. The issue is that if you have all doubles games for the large team tournament, any more than 7 players per large team and all members can not mathematically qualify for medals. If you have 12 players, you can only use quadruples to ensure medal eligibility.

What's the point of having large team tourneys if you can not utilize a large variety of settings? (i.e. Singles, dubs, trips, & quads)

It's 1/3 of eligible games, not 1/3 of all games. If you have 12 players and want to do 6 doubles pairings, that would be perfectly acceptable. In that scenario, it is understood that each player would take up 1 spot each round, so as long as they play in half the rounds, that would be fine (b/c the 50% rule would trump the 33% one in this case).

Put differently, the organizer sets up a scenario where there are 9 games per round of some mixture of settings, and each player can only play a maximum of 6 games. Therefore their eligible number of games per round is 6 but the number of all games per round is 9. So they would only have to average 2 games per round and not the 3 games per round as they are only eligible to play in 6 games, not 9 games.

I'm not quoting his posts, but it appears that greenoaks understands the situation.

Night Strike wrote:It's 1/3 of eligible games, not 1/3 of all games. If you have 12 players and want to do 6 doubles pairings, that would be perfectly acceptable. In that scenario, it is understood that each player would take up 1 spot each round, so as long as they play in half the rounds, that would be fine (b/c the 50% rule would trump the 33% one in this case).

Put differently, the organizer sets up a scenario where there are 9 games per round of some mixture of settings, and each player can only play a maximum of 6 games. Therefore their eligible number of games per round is 6 but the number of all games per round is 9. So they would only have to average 2 games per round and not the 3 games per round as they are only eligible to play in 6 games, not 9 games.

That makes more sense. So you could look at the calculation methodology as:

Total number of spots per team divided by number of players per team divided by 3.

Calculation 1:100 quads games * 4 spots = 400400 / 12 players = 33.333333 eligible games per player33 / 3 = 11 games each player must participate in to be medal eligible.

patrickaa317, I concur, that it is a truly tight squeeze, but it is just, but only just, doable. let me explain..Lindax, lets take the TLO 2010 as an example.Each round consists of 3 singles games (1v1), 4 doubles games, 2 triples games and 1 quad game.A team is 4 to 6 players. Lets assume 6 players.There are 10 games a round. You must participate in 4 to qualify for the 1/3th. rule.this is 6x4 spots= 28 spots filled right of the bat, without any room for less games per player.those 10 games have a total of (3+8+6+4=)21 spots.ergo, if you feature a TLO team with 6 players, you cannot all get a medal, even if you win every single game on the tournament.

it specifically mentions games, but lets assume it is truly calculated over the course of the tournament( as mentioned in the example).

Have played at least one-third (33%) of the tournament games he/she could have played.

I can assume it is only over the course of the tournament, but lets make it 3 rounds. that is a total of 30 games, and a total of 63 availiable spots. This would fit just... there are 3 spots so a single triple game where the team can make a choice. in every other game, you just have to fill it with every single player....

1/3 of the availiable games is then (30/3)= 10. So each player needs to play 10 games, with 6 players that is 60 spots covered, and 3 spots left to fill in by choice.----------------------patrickaa317's point is that if you keep a different format without teamgames you run into a problem.

The least teamgames you can do is something like, e.g. 1 quad, 2 triples 3 double and 4 singles, the same match does work out with a 6 player team.Available spots per round; 20, with 10 available games a round. Assume 3 rounds, 60 total spots and 30 games. Each player should play at least 10 games, there is no choise, you must place as best as you can, there cannot be a reserve player batting only a few games, or he does not get a medal.----------Other concepts also workA forced serie best of X is going well as well. at least with singles or doubles and in some cases even trips...-Say the team has to do a best of 3 in every category, with each series having the same team, singles doubs trips and quads. Say you have 6 players.4x3 games = 12 games., but the available playable spots are only 10. (since each player will face off the same opponent 3 times)12 games dictate 4 games per round, but some will only play 3.If you run into multiple rounds, say 3 again. then there are 36 games. so each player should play 12 games. This means each player should play in 4 series. There are 30 series of best of 3 so 26 serie are automatically and equally devided over the 6 players, with 4 games being unequally distributed.This could work.

Conclusion,Because the explanation talks about the duration of the tournament, this might just work. However the teamcaptain would have to work out how many games there can be played in total and plan accordingly and in advance, he has no room or not much to account for things like opponents and holidays. Missing even a single game may make a player become illegible for a medal.

That is truly heavy.

A concept where people get eliminated out of the team, or where a mid tournament replacement is done means no medals for those players. even if you did win 20 games in a row, or something...

A well a line has to be drawn somehwere.patrickaa317, it can work, but remember the phrase over the duration of the tournament, that should give enough space to make it work. When in doubt, talk to the TD and TO.

SirSebstar wrote:patrickaa317, I concur, that it is a truly tight squeeze, but it is just, but only just, doable. let me explain..Lindax, lets take the TLO 2010 as an example.Each round consists of 3 singles games (1v1), 4 doubles games, 2 triples games and 1 quad game.A team is 4 to 6 players. Lets assume 6 players.There are 10 games a round. You must participate in 4 to qualify for the 1/3th. rule.this is 6x4 spots= 28 spots filled right of the bat, without any room for less games per player.those 10 games have a total of (3+8+6+4=)21 spots.ergo, if you feature a TLO team with 6 players, you cannot all get a medal, even if you win every single game on the tournament.

your understanding is incorrect Sir Sebster.

TLO 2010 wrote:The same player cannot play more than 1 singles match, 2 doubles matches, 2 triples matches and the quad match.

that is a maximum of 6 games, therefore a player only needs to be in a third of that ie. 2 a round on average.

Night Strike wrote:The number 12 was chosen for a couple of reasons. The primary reason was that it allowed for 1 of each type of game play per round: 1 quads (4 spots), 1 triples (3), 1 doubles (2), 1 standard/terminator/assassin, and 1 1v1. That's actually 11 spots, so I just rounded it to the better number of 12. In my view, anything bigger than that starts getting into the clan war realm as probably nearly all clan wars consistent of teams of more than 12 players. And we want to be able to redraw the distinctions between tournaments and clan events.

----------------------------

So a group of friends from different clans, larger then 12 - have no way of playing in a team tournament together anymore. Clans are separate, by definition LARGE team tournaments are large. Why is there a restrictive top end window?

I see the reason for a minimum less than 5 it's no longer large. I see the need to ensure people play in x % of games etc. But what's the difference between a 10 player team tournament that's well run, and a group of 15 or 20 people playing against another group of players in a well defined, thought out tournament format?

Clans are groups who REGULARLY play together vs other regular pards. But if you hVe a group of friends from 2 or 3 clans - or not in any clans - who want to occasionally kick ass you cant.

It can't be a # of players issue, if your worried about attrition. Because I can just have 16 teams of 12. That's the same # of players as 8 teams of 24, but ones in the rules and one isn't. You'll have the same overall level of attrition.

Night Strike wrote:It's 1/3 of eligible games, not 1/3 of all games. If you have 12 players and want to do 6 doubles pairings, that would be perfectly acceptable. In that scenario, it is understood that each player would take up 1 spot each round, so as long as they play in half the rounds, that would be fine (b/c the 50% rule would trump the 33% one in this case).

Put differently, the organizer sets up a scenario where there are 9 games per round of some mixture of settings, and each player can only play a maximum of 6 games. Therefore their eligible number of games per round is 6 but the number of all games per round is 9. So they would only have to average 2 games per round and not the 3 games per round as they are only eligible to play in 6 games, not 9 games.

That makes more sense. So you could look at the calculation methodology as:

Total number of spots per team divided by number of players per team divided by 3.

Calculation 1:100 quads games * 4 spots = 400400 / 12 players = 33.333333 eligible games per player33 / 3 = 11 games each player must participate in to be medal eligible.

Then, it'd just have to be to verify that they participated in 50% of the rounds and that at least 1 game was won.

Obviously with IcePack's scenario of players being eliminated, this calculation methodology would have to be applied per round.

your methodology is also incorrect. it has nothing to do with spots in a game. it is about how many games may 1 person play.

if they may play all of them then it is 1/3 of all games but if a TO puts restrictions on how many games someone can participate in in any given round then 1/3 of that resticted number would be required. each tournament would need to be looked at individually.

IcePack wrote:Night Strike wrote:The number 12 was chosen for a couple of reasons. The primary reason was that it allowed for 1 of each type of game play per round: 1 quads (4 spots), 1 triples (3), 1 doubles (2), 1 standard/terminator/assassin, and 1 1v1. That's actually 11 spots, so I just rounded it to the better number of 12. In my view, anything bigger than that starts getting into the clan war realm as probably nearly all clan wars consistent of teams of more than 12 players. And we want to be able to redraw the distinctions between tournaments and clan events.

----------------------------

So a group of friends from different clans, larger then 12 - have no way of playing in a team tournament together anymore. Clans are separate, by definition LARGE team tournaments are large. Why is there a restrictive top end window?

I see the reason for a minimum less than 5 it's no longer large. I see the need to ensure people play in x % of games etc. But what's the difference between a 10 player team tournament that's well run, and a group of 15 or 20 people playing against another group of players in a well defined, thought out tournament format?

Clans are groups who REGULARLY play together vs other regular pards. But if you hVe a group of friends from 2 or 3 clans - or not in any clans - who want to occasionally kick ass you cant.

It can't be a # of players issue, if your worried about attrition. Because I can just have 16 teams of 12. That's the same # of players as 8 teams of 24, but ones in the rules and one isn't. You'll have the same overall level of attrition.

Simply because that's what we set it at. You will rarely have teams larger that 12 players that isn't made up of just members of one clan (except maybe bringing in a couple of outside friends). We feel that these super-large teams fits better in a clan environment, not a tournament environment.

Night Strike wrote:It's 1/3 of eligible games, not 1/3 of all games. If you have 12 players and want to do 6 doubles pairings, that would be perfectly acceptable. In that scenario, it is understood that each player would take up 1 spot each round, so as long as they play in half the rounds, that would be fine (b/c the 50% rule would trump the 33% one in this case).

Put differently, the organizer sets up a scenario where there are 9 games per round of some mixture of settings, and each player can only play a maximum of 6 games. Therefore their eligible number of games per round is 6 but the number of all games per round is 9. So they would only have to average 2 games per round and not the 3 games per round as they are only eligible to play in 6 games, not 9 games.

That makes more sense. So you could look at the calculation methodology as:

Total number of spots per team divided by number of players per team divided by 3.

Calculation 1:100 quads games * 4 spots = 400400 / 12 players = 33.333333 eligible games per player33 / 3 = 11 games each player must participate in to be medal eligible.

Then, it'd just have to be to verify that they participated in 50% of the rounds and that at least 1 game was won.

Obviously with IcePack's scenario of players being eliminated, this calculation methodology would have to be applied per round.

your methodology is also incorrect. it has nothing to do with spots in a game. it is about how many games may 1 person play.

if they may play all of them then it is 1/3 of all games but if a TO puts restrictions on how many games someone can participate in in any given round then 1/3 of that resticted number would be required. each tournament would need to be looked at individually.

What if I have a 12 player per team tourney and I just request that each team submit a roster for 3 quads games, 3 trips games, 3 dubs games, & 2 1v1 games per round? No minimum or maximum per player.

According your reply, any player may then play in all 11 of them thus my original post where this could end up with no players meeting the 33% comes back into play. Each player would average 2.41 out of 11 games and they would need to play in 3.66 games to qualify for the 33%.

patrickaa317 wrote:What if I have a 12 player per team tourney and I just request that each team submit a roster for 3 quads games, 3 trips games, 3 dubs games, & 2 1v1 games per round? No minimum or maximum per player.

According your reply, any player may then play in all 11 of them thus my original post where this could end up with no players meeting the 33% comes back into play. Each player would average 2.41 out of 11 games and they would need to play in 3.66 games to qualify for the 33%.

the player who played in all 11 would qualify. there may be others. some will miss out.

TO's should be mindful of this and create tournaments where the victory is dependant on the majority of members the majority of times. this rule stops one or two people dominating a team effort with everyone still getting a medal.

patrickaa317 wrote:What if I have a 12 player per team tourney and I just request that each team submit a roster for 3 quads games, 3 trips games, 3 dubs games, & 2 1v1 games per round? No minimum or maximum per player.

According your reply, any player may then play in all 11 of them thus my original post where this could end up with no players meeting the 33% comes back into play. Each player would average 2.41 out of 11 games and they would need to play in 3.66 games to qualify for the 33%.

the player who played in all 11 would qualify. there may be others. some will miss out.

TO's should be mindful of this and create tournaments where the victory is dependant on the majority of members the majority of times. this rule stops one or two people dominating a team effort with everyone still getting a medal.

I understand the purpose of this rule but I think it needs to be defined as to what comprises an "eligible" game and what doesn't. What you're saying is that verbiage of the tournament decides who qualifies and who doesn't.

Example assuming the same tourney used in prior post (12 player per team tourney; 3 quads games, 3 trips games, 3 dubs games, & 2 1v1 games per round)

If I said the max was 6 games per player and all 12 players play an exact number of games, they would all qualify for a medal (play an average of 2.41 games out of 6 per round, above 33%).

If I said there was no max games per player and all 12 players plan an exact number of games, they would NOT qualify for a medal (play an average of 2.41 games out of 11 per round, below 33%)

The game counts are the same, the tourney is the same, everything is the same other than me defining a maximium per round that is not reached in either example.

Where as my original understanding of Night Strike's reply being the assumption that all players would play an equal number of games, and in order to qualify you must play 33% of that assumed game load; that makes complete sense.

Maybe Night Strike can step in and define what "eligible" is defined as:A.) Restrictions put in place by Tournament Organizer (I believe Greenoaks understanding)B.) Assumed equal game count per all team members (patrickaa317's understanding from NS's last post)C.) Something else?

patrickaa317 wrote:What if I have a 12 player per team tourney and I just request that each team submit a roster for 3 quads games, 3 trips games, 3 dubs games, & 2 1v1 games per round? No minimum or maximum per player.

With this scenario, lets say there are 6 rounds. That means there are a total of 66 games each player can play in. In order to qualify, the player needs 1 win, 50 percent in rounds, and then the important part, 22 games(rounded up). You have a total of 174 total 'spots' available total for the whole tourney. If each player plays in EXACTLY the same number of games, they will play in only 14-15 games... Meaning only 2-4 players on the team would recieve the medal if games were distributed unevenly. (if 4 players receive the medal by playing 22 games, they took up more than half the number of available games, [88 games], and left the other 8 players with an average of 10.75 games each)

This method, IMO, with those particular round set-up that Pat mentioned, would actually cause MORE of a few players representing the entire team

Instead, to fix it, while still using the TD's new method, TO's should be forced to either accept that only a few players will recieve medals, OR change the set-up of their tourny. For instance, make it so that the max number of players on the team is 8 (using Pat's reference). Everyone will play 21.75 games on average, meaning if the games are evenly distributed, most players will recieve the medal.

OR since each tourny is submitted to the TD's before it is submitted to the public, maybe a separate system has to be made for each tourny? Lets say Pat did want to run a tourny like he mentioned, with 12 players on a team. Would it be fair to force him to either change or be dissasitsfied, when in reality, he could have had al 12 members of the winning team share an equal workload of games?

Maybe you have to take the number of players participating in mind when making the min number of games that a player has to be part of.. For instance, for Pat's tourny, if you made each of the 12 players be forced to play in at least 11, or 12 games, if each player plays the same amount of games, they will be playing an equal amount of games as the rest of their team, AND they would still recieve the medal. After all, isn't that what the TD's want? The whole reason is to keep a team of 12 getting the medal because 4 players played in 100 games while the other 8 played in 12?

Here is my thoughts on the number of games a player needs to play to get the medal

Number of 'spaces' available divided by the number of players on your team, minus 2.

So in Pats case, (174/12)-2= 12.5 games, rounded up is 13.

Lets look at another example:8 large teams, each with 10 players. Each team has 4 home maps of quads, trips, dubs, and singles. Each round, you play against one other team, on your home maps and on theirs. Single elimination, so there is Four rounds total

Number of 'spots' available: [(4*4*2)+(4*3*2)+(4*2*2)+(4*1*2)]*4=320

(320/10)-2= 30. Each player, to get the medal, needs to play in 30 or more games, win one game, and play in 2 or more rounds.

Now, if 4 played played in lets say 38 games(a slight majority of the games, since the average number of games per player should be 32, and a majority of games played by a few people are what the TD's are trying to avoid), that leaves an average of games remaining for the rest of the players on their team 28 games on average. So only half them would be able to get the medals. If those four players played a bigger majority of 42 games, that leaves 25.3 games per player for the rest of the team. So the larger amount of games that a few people play in, the less of a shot the other players have for the medal

idk, I am not sure if I accounted for everything.. whatdo you think

Tired of being Freemium? Enjoy playing doubles games? ClickHERE, to see how you can earn yourself a PREMIUMmembership!!

If I said there was no max games per player and all 12 players plan an exact number of games, they would NOT qualify for a medal (play an average of 2.41 games out of 11 per round, below 33%)

this is where you are wrong.ity is overall games, not per round...so they can play 2 games this round and 3 the next 2.. or something

Ok so assume 10 rounds overall. 110 total games (11 per round * 10 rounds). All players would have played 24.1 games. According to what I am understanding from greenoaks, you would need 36.66 games to qualify as the tournament organizer didn't restrict the games per round. The team captain completely balanced the number of games per player.

I think we wait for Night Strike to elaborate further on this part before we discuss any more:

patrickaa317 wrote:Maybe Night Strike can step in and define what "eligible" is defined as:A.) Restrictions put in place by Tournament Organizer (I believe Greenoaks understanding)B.) Assumed equal game count per all team members (patrickaa317's understanding from NS's last post)C.) Something else?

If NS does agree with letter A above, I can provide an example of a complete tourney tomorrow if this would help. Even a Game by Game breakdown if need be.

patrickaa317 wrote:Where as my original understanding of Night Strike's reply being the assumption that all players would play an equal number of games, and in order to qualify you must play 33% of that assumed game load; that makes complete sense.

Maybe Night Strike can step in and define what "eligible" is defined as:A.) Restrictions put in place by Tournament Organizer (I believe Greenoaks understanding)B.) Assumed equal game count per all team members (patrickaa317's understanding from NS's last post)C.) Something else?

My intention was A because I assumed tournaments would naturally cap the number of games a single player could play in so that one player wasn't dominating the team. B would be the default if there was no restriction in place by the organizer.

However, no one needs to even worry about B if they just go ahead and put a cap in place. If you know that each round you're going to have 12 games where some players will only play in 2 while others play in 3, just arbitrarily throw in a maximum games for 1 player of 6 games. And then the numbers work out while in reality you're changing absolutely nothing about the structure of the tournament.